Skip to main content

Dialectic Materialism--thoughts about freedom and propaganda

At an atypical note in a forum like this, I want to talk a little bit about my thoughts on freedom, hegemony and communication. It is a logical topic for the week, as we read about state and revolution, side by side with the bifurcated view of communication--it is at the same time the site and process of oppression and resistance, in other words. This topic is more salient to me now because I was reading, for another course, Gramsci, which gave me nightmare vision of the author comparing hegemony to the freedom of prisoners within the surrounding walls, the freedom that he 'enjoyed' for the last eight years of his life. From the plethora of random ideas, I somehow delineated several strands of thoughts that I want to share with my classmates, and hopefully can generate some discussions from you.
1. About freedom, which is not one, but several. There's the reading of "freedom" in the sense of "free press" as expressed in John Milton's Areopagitica. The reading of "freedom" in the "worldwide press freedom index" generated by Reporter Sans Frontier is a different interpretation in many senses.
The difference here is almost as big as the difference between a "free market" and getting something "for free" in a market. Because communication is the product and tool of social interaction, so is the idea "freedom" construed and used in the power dynamics from its birth. In this sense, the word "freedom" is an oxymoron unless expressed and understood in the form of "whose freedom from whom of what". I remember having a discussion with an ex-colleague with a TV news channel about press freedom in China. The TV news reporter complained that government intervention prevents him from putting in stories that would "really be what the audience wanted". When I asked him what those articles were about, he said "NBA". The point I want to make here is that "freedom" as a communicative idea is created for the purpose and during the process of circumventing freedom.

2. Hegemony is a mechanism through which oppression is enacted through the production and application of language and communication. But the function of hegemonic oppression is carried out not through the act of creating language, but through language itself, void of the circumstances in which it is created. In his later works, even after gaining power in 1949, Mao repeatedly mentioned the importance of creating a new culture and new language for his plan of social change. Some of the terms he created, "paper tiger", "people's revolution", etc. were later branded as "propaganda". Which leads me to my second point. In the field of PR, "propaganda" belongs to the hideous, awkward past. Propaganda is the process of creating a terminology to define/identify (read: oppress) an entity (a class, for instance), but is rendered ineffective when this identification (read oppression) process gets identified itself by another oppressing agent. Thus, propaganda cannot exist by itself, but has to be in a dialectic relationship--a lexicon is not propaganda unless another competing lexicon identifies it as one. Having no ideology is the biggest ideology of all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Academic integrity and knowing what you stand for

Reading the story of the UVa President Teresa Sullivan, I am filled with amazement at her integrity and character. Professor Sullivan first and foremost is an A-grade academic, a solid researcher, a great teacher, and an engaged citizen. Of course above and beyond these top-notch credentials, she is a strong leader, one with vision and compassion for her faculty and students. When I read more and more about her leadership style, I am reminded of something my father used to tell me when I was young "You need to have integrity to do anything well in life. You need to figure out where you stand and make sure to stand up for what you believe in, even when that is inconvenient." Now, I don't think I have always been able to follow this dictum consistently, but it is a broad principle that guides me and the way in which I understand leadership. Part of the story of Professor Sullivan's integrity is her excellence as an academic. Academic excellence to me is deepl

Too Much Communication

A few thoughts on this week's readings: -Cloud's (2005) article was a highlight for me given the stinging nature in the way it attacked conventional communication literature for its shortcomings. The idea that we view labor movements and frictions with the corporate world through strictly a communication lens has major issues. I do conceded there is a certain value in using the discursive space afforded by alternate channels of communication and to find a "democratic" representation of labor in the communication process. But this should not be taken as interchangeable to an improved physical situation for those doing the work under harsh conditions. To assume that communication alone makes things hunky dory is nonsense. The root of this disease in my mind is partly the academic specialization. Assuming you are a communication scholar, it is logical that in many cases you will view things exclusively from a communication angle. In doing so, you run the risk of exaggera

Activism, Communication and Social Change

Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var